A Microsoft employee has said that an upgrade to Windows Phone 8 will be …

We've expressed concern about the prospects of upgrading current first and second generation Windows Phone handsets to Windows Phone 8, codenamed Apollo, when it is released later this year. Microsoft refuses to commit publicly, and we've heard from employees within the company that some or all current users won't be able to upgrade, even those who buy new, second-generation devices. Others have heard similar tales.

A: What Microsoft said/stated and what I’m allowed to tell you is that all actual devices will get upgrade to the next major version of Windows Phone (we're talking about Apollo)

Q: When you say actual devices. Are all that came out to market?

A: Are all that came out. Since the first generation that were bought. The LGs and Samsungs.. OMNIA 7 which were the first devices with Windows Phone reaching the market.

That seems nice and clear-cut, and sounds like good news for anyone who currently has a Windows Phone: they'll all get an upgrade, even for their first-generation handset. Curiously, Silva refers to "what Microsoft said/stated," but Microsoft hasn't, in fact, issued any official statements about the availability of updates to Windows Phone 8 or spoken informally about the subject. That incongruity raises questions about whether Silva's remarks are accurate.

We asked Microsoft for a comment, hoping to get something more than a ropey translation—maybe a word about when the software might be released, or what the situation would be for handsets such as the Dell Venue Pro that have been more or less abandoned by their manufacturers. But unfortunately, such a comment was not forthcoming. Instead, this is what Microsoft had to say, in a statement that is attributable only to a "Microsoft spokesman:"

We have stated publicly that all apps in our Marketplace today will run on the next version of Windows Phone. Beyond that, we have nothing to share about future releases.

We were also told that Microsoft hasn't "shared any info on [the availability of upgrades] yet." So on the one hand, we have a Microsoft employee, whose job it is to promote Microsoft technologies, talking about the updates while apparently representing Microsoft; on the other hand, we have Microsoft telling us that it hasn't actually said a word about these updates.

The company is not actually saying that Silva was mistaken or misunderstood; it's apparently claiming that no representatives of the company have said anything at all about update availability. We might expect this kind of response in the face of an unsourced rumor; it's rather harder to reconcile with a video posted on YouTube.

It was also suggested to us that "it's possible there was some confusion" between the statements that the company has made (that apps will be forward compatible) and the statements it refuses to make (that phones will be forward compatible).

What does it all mean? It's possible that Silva is flat out wrong or, as Microsoft suggests, suffering from "confusion." The translation might also be at fault in some important way (though our readers vouch for its accuracy, so this seems unlikely).

Our guess, however, is that technically Windows Phone 8 will work on current Windows Phone devices (or at least most of them). However, that's only part of the story: getting an update on any carrier-branded handset requires the carrier's authorization, and some carriers aren't very good at providing this authorization. Absent this authorization, Microsoft can't promise any updates to anyone, ever, except in the case of critical security flaws. We suspect that this authorization may well not be in place, meaning that the company can't actually make the kind of promise that Silva made.

By this stage in the development of Windows Phone "Mango" 7.5, Microsoft had talked up the features of the new version at two separate public events: first last year's Mobile World Congress in February, second at the company's own MIX11 in April. The silence over Windows Phone 8 remains a cause for concern. Silva may ultimately prove to be correct; he may not. Either way, forcing current buyers to take that gamble can only hurt the platform.

Update: Nuno Silva has now retracted his comments, saying "The point I was attempting to make was simply that existing Windows Phone applications will run on the next version of Windows Phone. [...] I mistakenly confused app compatibility with phone updateability."

You take a gamble whenever you buy a smartphone. How many phones have ICS? How many Androids were abandoned with Eclair and Froyo? Making a purchasing decision based on what *might* happen is a mistake I've made before, so nowadays I go on what I *know* i.e. What the device is capable of at the time I make the purchase.

Between what thesorehead says and what the reality lays out, I'm sure that xda-developers or some other intrepid group of punters will figure out some way of shoehorning Apollo onto legacy handsets, barring something in MS's published specs that preclude such from happening.

It'd be borderline criminal for MS not to update second gen phones being sold today like the Lumia 900, given that we're expecting the update this fall. And I fully expect them to be able to make good on this the same way they did for Mango, since it will be part of a huge computing-wide rollout of Windows 8/RT/8 Phone.

Older devices, who knows. But, if you've already got it running on a 1.5GHz single core with 512MB, it's hard to imagine that the 1GHz single core with 512MB would be cut out for technical reasons. I'm not expecting an update to my Focus, but I think there's a chance that it will be updated.

If the leaks are to be believed, ATT is bundling all of the previous updates together with Tango when that comes out. Frankly it doesn't bug me if their (and MS's?) strategy is "release a few big updates rather than testing and releasing every minor update for every device." I agree 8107 is badly needed, but if that's the compromise to have a broad range of phones get updates then so be it - it's still miles ahead of official Android. I know people will say carriers can block whatever they want, and I'm sure that's technically true, but then the Mango release presents this huge anomoly of competence. I think it's possible that there's something to that, and that the something is a behind the scenes agreement on some sort of "bundled/major update only" strategy. Carriers have less testing, MS advertises that its phones get updated (eventually!) If so that might slightly favor a Win8 release for older devices.

I just posted in the other article about WP how I feel about it and the reasons I'm getting an Android.

Whew, glad I know you're going Android, thanks for the heads up.

Seriously though, with the talk of a WP8 leaving WP7 owners out in the cold sounds like a death sentence for the entire OS. Unless there's still a large population stuck on iOS 1.0 out there somewhere...

It's a pity, because I have a Dell Venue Pro, and it is a decent bit of kit. It sure would be nice if it got updated to WP8 when the time came around...

Edit: Phone performance is not going to get much better -- and all the magic appears to happen in software at this point. Therefore, like an enterprise software purchaser, from now on I am going to go with the phone manufacturer that is going to make sure that my $500+ investment will remain valid and up-to-date for, say, the next three years.

They could very well answer the question considering unlocked devices...But no...

I just posted in the other article about WP how I feel about it and the reasons I'm getting an Android.

If the uncertainty of the upgrade is the reason you are going with Android then the irony here would be that save for the Nexus line of Android phones Android's upgrade path is no better than what we are supposedly getting with 7.5 > 8 ie nobody freaking knows.

This isn't a Microsoft issue, this is a carrier issue. Those like Karoc who say that Microsoft is being criminal are pointing the finger at the party not responsible for the issues. Also I'd point out that what I see Peter Bright doing is stirring the pot over what appears to be a non issue at this point and time. Microsoft appears to be pretty clear that they are going to update. I think I am starting to believe the point of view of some posters here that say that Peter and other writers on Ars are anti Windows phone.

I'd rather see the writers write more articles about the providers. I like my Verizon subscription, we have six phones on it. My only big issue is that Verizon only offers one Windows Phone, and I can't seem to really find out if in the future they will ever carry more types. I refuse to ever go back to AT&T and T-Mobile didn't impress me nor do any of the others for my needs and my families needs. Verizon is it for us for the near future. I like my Windows phone though, much better then the Androids in the family. I would just like options in the future for newer models. So far updates have been fine for my phone as a side note.

They could very well answer the question considering unlocked devices...But no...

I just posted in the other article about WP how I feel about it and the reasons I'm getting an Android.

If the uncertainty of the upgrade is the reason you are going with Android then the irony here would be that save for the Nexus line of Android phones Android's upgrade path is no better than what we are supposedly getting with 7.5 > 8 ie nobody freaking knows.

You take a gamble whenever you buy a smartphone. How many phones have ICS? How many Androids were abandoned with Eclair and Froyo? Making a purchasing decision based on what *might* happen is a mistake I've made before, so nowadays I go on what I *know* i.e. What the device is capable of at the time I make the purchase.

Android has a lot of great features, but OS updating is an area I think we could charitably call an unmitigated failure. Comparing to Android on this does Windows Phone no favours.

How does it compare to the market leader, the iPhone? How hard are iPhones to upgrade? There's no gamble on this aspect of iOS.

Let's say you're in the middle of moving to a completely different kernel, making extensive UI changes, adding support of higher resolutions and more cores, and have just gone through a lot of headaches getting carriers to even distribute simple patches. What would you do? Would you bravely march on stage and say everyone is getting the update? I don't think so. They'll do their best, but I think they are right to stay a bit mum on this for now.

This isn't a Microsoft issue, this is a carrier issue. Those like Karoc who say that Microsoft is being criminal are pointing the finger at the party not responsible for the issues. Also I'd point out that what I see Peter Bright doing is stirring the pot over what appears to be a non issue at this point and time. Microsoft appears to be pretty clear that they are going to update.

“We have stated publicly that all apps in our Marketplace today will run on the next version of Windows Phone. Beyond that, we have nothing to share about future releases.”

That is not "pretty clear" about the matter at all.

Quote:

I think I am starting to believe the point of view of some posters here that say that Peter and other writers on Ars are anti Windows phone.

I'm nothing of the sort. I think upgradability is a key feature for smartphones, and Microsoft promised to be so much better than Android. I like Windows Phone a lot, and want it to succeed. Even optimistically, it has an extremely tough road ahead. For Microsoft to make this even harder by refusing to discuss the future just makes it even harder.

Quote:

I'd rather see the writers write more articles about the providers. I like my Verizon subscription, we have six phones on it. My only big issue is that Verizon only offers one Windows Phone, and I can't seem to really find out if in the future they will ever carry more types. I refuse to ever go back to AT&T and T-Mobile didn't impress me nor do any of the others for my needs and my families needs. Verizon is it for us for the near future. I like my Windows phone though, much better then the Androids in the family. I would just like options in the future for newer models. So far updates have been fine for my phone as a side note.

No they haven't; Verizon only decided to give the Trophy the 8107 update a few days ago.

I came from a Galaxy S which I bought when it was released with Eclair, during the time which I owned it I flashed it with numerous Froyo/Gingerbread ROMs (official and homebrew), even tried ICS on it. I'm now using a Lumia 800.

I don't find any "features" that I miss when making the change on everyday usage, in fact I have much less headaches on Mango than I do with any ROM (official or homebrew) for Android. The fact that I don't even have to flash it is already a better UX than any Android I've had (I still own a XOOM with homebrew ICS on it *shudder*)

In the future if I buy Android it is either Nexus or nothing, screw the OEM skins no matter how good the hardware spec is.

I came from a Galaxy S which I bought when it was released with Eclair, during the time which I owned it I flashed it with numerous Froyo/Gingerbread ROMs (official and homebrew), even tried ICS on it. I'm now using a Lumia 800.

I don't find any "features" that I miss when making the change on everyday usage, in fact I have much less headaches on Mango than I do with any ROM (official or homebrew) for Android. The fact that I don't even have to flash it is already a better UX than any Android I've had (I still own a XOOM with homebrew ICS on it *shudder*)

In the future if I buy Android it is either Nexus or nothing, screw the OEM skins no matter how good the hardware spec is.

No, this IS a Microsoft issue, because Microsoft designed the platform this way and gave the power to the carriers. You can lay the blame on others all you want, but iOS users don't suffer these problems -- and they're using the same carriers who are delaying the Windows Phone releases. The platform was designed by Microsoft and is owned by Microsoft. It is THEIR responsibility to design it in a way that's good for customers, especially after Apple proved it could be done (insofar as updates are concerned).

This isn't a Microsoft issue, this is a carrier issue. Those like Karoc who say that Microsoft is being criminal are pointing the finger at the party not responsible for the issues. Also I'd point out that what I see Peter Bright doing is stirring the pot over what appears to be a non issue at this point and time. Microsoft appears to be pretty clear that they are going to update. I think I am starting to believe the point of view of some posters here that say that Peter and other writers on Ars are anti Windows phone.

I'd rather see the writers write more articles about the providers. I like my Verizon subscription, we have six phones on it. My only big issue is that Verizon only offers one Windows Phone, and I can't seem to really find out if in the future they will ever carry more types. I refuse to ever go back to AT&T and T-Mobile didn't impress me nor do any of the others for my needs and my families needs. Verizon is it for us for the near future. I like my Windows phone though, much better then the Androids in the family. I would just like options in the future for newer models. So far updates have been fine for my phone as a side note.

But this is a Microsoft issue. It's their OS. And it's not like this is something new for Microsoft. They have been working with manufacturers and carriers for more than 10 years.

I think it's funny that the newest company to the smartphone game has managed to get ALL carriers to not give them any crap about OS updates, but NO other company has been able to do, even the ones who started the industry like Motorola and Nokia.

It's still "we have to suck the carriers cock, throw our users under the bus".

No they haven't; Verizon only decided to give the Trophy the 8107 update a few days ago.[/quote]

They haven't? Really? 8107 was not a big update, AT ALL! It fixed some small security bugs and a rare disappearing keyboard bug. The big update was Mango 7740, which Verizon released for the Trophy promptly. In fact, I'm very surprised that Verizon even bothered to update the Trophy to 8107. I really don't think that the phone even sold very well, and most people don't even know about it.

I would agree with acmegamer when he sad that the updates "have been fine" for the Trophy.

I think I am starting to believe the point of view of some posters here that say that Peter and other writers on Ars are anti Windows phone.

I'm nothing of the sort. I think upgradability is a key feature for smartphones, and Microsoft promised to be so much better than Android. I like Windows Phone a lot, and want it to succeed. Even optimistically, it has an extremely tough road ahead. For Microsoft to make this even harder by refusing to discuss the future just makes it even harder.

For Microsoft to succeed with Windows phone , they have to be at least as good as their main opposition.

Android updaes == laughably bad. comical. A joke, and a bad one at that. This is the low bar and snakes slither over it.

iOS == Best part of perfect. All current devices get the updates regardless of carrier and they get it quickly. Older devices are typically support for 2 generations (From memory).

Microsoft are starting from a long way back, and they have to be at least equal to iOS in this. But they aren't.

I'm looking for a new smart phone in about 4 months time. I don't really want an iPhone, but androids updating makes it a non starter for me currenty, and microsoft are just waffling. I'm not going to get stuck with another phone that gets no OS updates.

With most platforms (PC/Symbian/other) prior to the iPhone, you purchased your device (PC/phone) and it came with an OS which provided a set of features. Sometimes people paid for an upgrade (say Win95 to WinXP) and received a bunch of new functionality, but more often than not, what you lived with was what you started with until you upgraded to the next generation device.

iOS redefined the landscape and expectation by providing free upgrades that greatly enhanced the devices, and moved them from being pretty basic to having many features. (Saying that, recent iOS updates have completely lame feature-wise and I probably wouldn't have missed them).

These upgrades did sometimes come with a price in terms of performance. My 3G was rubbish with iOS4 - it would have been better without the upgrade - proving that upgrades are not always the best thing to do when hardware moves forward in large leaps.

I completely relate to the 'expecting free upgrades' club, and yet in many ways, it is not always the best path. Should we really expect free major updates? Security updates are most definitely required on any internet connected device... but is it really fair to expect companies to make a new OS work on last generation hardware?

Those like Karoc who say that Microsoft is being criminal are pointing the finger at the party not responsible for the issues.

That's a bit stronger than what I was trying to say, which is that I'm certain MS feels the same obligation to update the Lumia 900 to WP8 that they felt to update 1st-gen devices to Mango. It would be (metaphorically!) criminal to release a hugely hyped phone from your top-tier hardware partner and then not update it 6 months later to the massive new version, and I think MS understands that.

The reason I point to MS is because, well, they got the carriers to behave for Mango. So it suggests to me that they have somewhat more leverage than you're giving them credit for. That's why the rest of my post outlined my idea that they might have a behind the scenes compromise going where carriers can block minor updates to their heart's content but agree to roll out the major, marketed upgrade releases (7.5, 7.5 Release 2 7.1.1 or whatever they call Tango these days, WP8). Just a theory, of course, but it fits the "ATT is blocking 8107!," "The Mango rollout was virtually flawless!," and "ATT said they will be bundling all previous updates when Tango is rolled out" data points.

Making a purchasing decision based on what *might* happen is a mistake I've made before, so nowadays I go on what I *know* i.e. What the device is capable of at the time I make the purchase.

Yup. I buy a phone for what it is today, not for what I hope it will be next month. I am fully comfortable with the fact that next month's upgrade, whether I get it or not, doesn't in any way diminish the phone I own right now. It still does all the the things I bought it to do.

That said, MS have clear policy on how they support their PC operating systems. And you can always upgrade from the prior Windows OS to the next version, if the hardware supports it. And if the hardware doesn't support an upgrade, there's always a clear reference as to why. It is frustrating that MS seem unable to offer the same support and upgrade experience with phones.

Assuming existing WP7 phones are upgradable to WP8, how much will Microsoft charge for it? $20? $50? AFAIK they've never given OS upgrades for free, that's not their business model.

Trolling? Or do you honestly come to articles about WP with total ignorance of their update history?

Point updates like Mango, Tango etc are free, they are are equivalent to service packs. But major OS upgrades like Windows Vista, Windows 7 (and I assume WP8/Apollo) have always cost north of $100. You may argue that phone and computer operating system upgrades are not comparable but that ignores the long term trend towards device convergence. I look forward to the day my Windows 9 or 10 phone slots into a tablet or a laptop or monitor etc allowing me to work with my data and programs the way I want to.

Its true, WP8 will not make it to the current WP7 devices as the HW config cannot boot WP8. The boot sequence is similar to W8 and wont work on existing WP HW. Everyone who works with WP8 already knows this. But, that doesn't mean MS will not port some of the features that are not dependent on HW to existing WPs.

Making a purchasing decision based on what *might* happen is a mistake I've made before, so nowadays I go on what I *know* i.e. What the device is capable of at the time I make the purchase.

Yup. I buy a phone for what it is today, not for what I hope it will be next month. I am fully comfortable with the fact that next month's upgrade, whether I get it or not, doesn't in any way diminish the phone I own right now. It still does all the the things I bought it to do.

That said, MS have clear policy on how they support their PC operating systems. And you can always upgrade from the prior Windows OS to the next version, if the hardware supports it. And if the hardware doesn't support an upgrade, there's always a clear reference as to why. It is frustrating that MS seem unable to offer the same support and upgrade experience with phones.

Yeah, you can settle for "I got what I paid for." But why settle for this, you can get a phone that will get significant new functionality for more than two years, at no additional cost to you.

And once WP8 is released, at best MS will just do bug fixes for WP7.x afterwards. How likely do you think AT&T will bother 'permitting' any of those updated through. Other carriers are better about updates, but still...

Its like Apple raised the bar too high for anybody else to even bother trying to get up to it, let alone over it.

You take a gamble whenever you buy a smartphone. How many phones have ICS? How many Androids were abandoned with Eclair and Froyo? Making a purchasing decision based on what *might* happen is a mistake I've made before, so nowadays I go on what I *know* i.e. What the device is capable of at the time I make the purchase.

I know the oldest iPhones can't run the latest OS but it's always pretty clear you're going to get at least 3 years worth of upgrades.

Edit: And yes, this is important to me! My first iPhone (2008 3G) saw so many improvements in the time I owned it. Saying that you should be happy with the phone as it was when you first bought it is selling yourself short.

"and all phones will get the updates" Joe Belfiore at the launch of windows phoneMicrosoft went on later to clarify their position with carriers and said they would only let carrier skip a single update.(tho they haven't enforced this very strictly)now considering this if Microsoft intended not to provide an update path for existing phones they would not be calling it an update, they would be calling it a new product.I believe this situation is similar to the Silverlight/windows 8 controversy were people thought that Microsoft was going to ditch Silverlight because Microsoft would not comment(saying instead that they would support html/JavaScript etc.). what actually happened was better for everybody.I'm confident that I will have the latest software running on my Lumia 800 by the end of the year.